Economics

[Bogtrotter07]

So I want to start this thread with the posts from the Ukraine thread. It seems like no matter where someone wants to champion Reagan economic policies and a conservative agenda.

FULL DISCLOSURE : I don't care what you believe as long as you take responsibility for your own position. If you are going to argue for something, it is warts and all.

Me, I don't think we have had a competent economic policy in this country for a while. We have had a stifling political agenda, which is killing us. Which is why I would love to scalp anyone who wants blanket expansion of entitlement programs without building in cost efficiency and much more responsibility, and people that would argue failed economic policy I don't care if it is Nixon's price freezes to Reagan's trickle down theory. It is all unworkable crap.

I am a possiblist, not a liberal or a conservative. I think zero sum games are a gimmick used by those in power to control whole segments of the populace. In fact, because things never worked they probably shouldn't be tried; because things worked doesn't mean they will still work. Our growth has led to an economy in uncharted territory. To big to fail, etc., cut government spending/smaller government, and all the other clichés go nowhere to solve the problem.

Yes, government money. The problem with the New Deal was that it wasn't ambitious enough. WW2 just so happened to be the greatest public works project in history. A Keynesian dream.

Even with the Regan military buildup, military spending as a percentage of GDP was much lower than WW2 levels.

I bring this up because I hear so many people who are against government spending during recessions, yet think WW2 got us out of the depression. They're the same thing.

WW2 didn't end the depression because of stimulus or government spending. It ended the depression because we were building bombs. Those were the proverbial "shovel ready jobs" that were completely absent from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Full employment is also pretty easy WHEN THERE'S A DRAFT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

The great irony is that the big-government types criticize Reaganomics as "trickle down," when the real "top down" approach comes from the GOVERNMENT, not business.

Thank you for proving my point. Wizard pointed out a great difference. Government has become so massive (a country of over 300 M people versus a country of 100 M people just making the conversion from agrarian and industrial to post industrial economy) that small stimuluses' aimed at the rich do nothing but make the rich richer. They don't effect the whole economy in the positive manner needed to improve the economy. We are in fact past the point of being able to stimulate our way out of recession caused by stupidity and greed.

But I don't want to take up this thread on that subject. I will start a new thread with this post and link back for anyone that would care to comment.

The fact of the matter is, you can talk as sophisticated economic theory you want. Wizard makes the point "Trickle down doesn't work" because the government can spend more in adjusted dollars than it did during World War II and it doesn't work. Both the Reagan/Bush and the Bush II spent more money that FDR did fighting the Axis, and their administrations showed less job growth that the Clinton Administration did. I don't have the numbers at hand but I think the Carter administration may have outpaced them, too!

So the basic ethical, moral, and scientific question is : "Is putting more earned wealth into the hands of more people the solution to the economic problems faced by America today?" If not, what is?

And if an agenda from the past worked, and it still would, why didn't we stick with it?

 

[BobD]

I can be economically stimulated.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I can be economically stimulated.

Doesn't one normally have to pay others for stimulation?

 

[chicago51]

Stop letting executives be paired with stock options.

End the carried interest and capital gains loopholes so if you make a million or more you pay the top rate not the capital gains rate. Americans should be able to invest and build up their money but the super rich using money to exponentially increase their wealth does not seem right to me. I don't think the founders would think so either.

Roll back the Reagan tax cuts on the rich.

By rich I don't mean where top rate is today at 400k. But we do need to decide what a good CEO to average worker pay is. 30 to 1 like it was back in 1968? 40 to 1? 50 to 1? Certainly not 500 to like it is now. So say decide 50 to 1 then the tax rate at $2.5 million should be so high the people say screw this I ain't these types of taxes I'll keep the money in the company and pay the employees. Which is buy the way what we did from post WW2 to 1982. I seen a lot of opinion pieces saying I am wrong about this but I haven't seen anyone show me the macro economic data and hard numbers that suggest I am wrong. Income grew across the board from post WW2 to Reagan because we allowed the best of capitalism to work while offsetting the negative effects.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So the basic ethical, moral, and scientific question is : "Is putting more earned wealth into the hands of more people the solution to the economic problems faced by America today?" If not, what is?

A better understanding of how we got here might be helpful in this discussion. The Protestant Deformation by James Kurth (himself a Presbyterian elder) describes how our national ideology is a debased and secularized version of Protestantism. Here's an excerpt on the bit about how it affected our economic system specifically:

Stage 1: Salvation by grace. At the personal level, the original Protestant (and, as the reformers saw it, the original Christian) experience is that of a direct, loving and saving relationship between the believer and God. This direct relationship and state of salvation are brought about by God, through his sovereign grace, and not by the person through his own works. This is the experience of being “born again” into a new life.

Obviously, any intermediaries, traditions or customs that could stand in the way of this direct relationship must be swept aside. The original Protestant and born-again Christian experiences his new life as a tabula rasa that enables him to release previously constrained energies and to focus them intensely on new undertakings. This in part explains the great energy and efficacy of many newly Christian persons. When the number of such persons is greatly multiplied, as it was at the time of the Reformation, it also in part explains the great energy and efficacy of some newly-Protestant nations (think of the Netherlands, England and Sweden in the 16th and 17th centuries).

Stage 2: Grace evidenced through work. A serious problem soon arises; indeed, it arises within the very next generation. The children of the original born-again Protestants are born into a Protestant family and church, but they themselves may not be born-again Protestants who have personally experienced the direct relationship with God and the state of salvation that grace brings. As Max Weber famously discussed in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, this can give rise to great anxiety about the spiritual state of second-generation Protestants.

For some in Protestant churches, especially the Anglican and Lutheran state churches of Europe but even the Episcopal and Lutheran churches in America, there was a solution close at hand. These churches had remained hierarchical (with the Pope replaced by the state monarch) and even somewhat communal. Perhaps, in some way that was not theologically clear but that was psychologically reassuring, the state of salvation could be reached by participation in the rituals and works of the church. In these churches, therefore, the focus upon grace gradually shifted in practice to a focus upon works, as had been the case in the Roman Catholic Church before the Protestant Reformation.

However, for persons in other Protestant churches, especially those known as the Reformed churches — the Calvinist churches of Europe as well as the Presbyterian and Congregational churches in America — the solution to the dilemma of Protestants who were “born in” but not “born again” had to be a different one. The stricter Reformed theology of these churches did not easily permit a diminished emphasis on the necessity of grace. Further, their relative absence of hierarchical and communal features meant that they had a less developed structure for the exercise of rituals and works. And yet, without the personal experience of grace, what evidence was there that second-generation, or birth-right, Protestants had received it?

As Weber discussed, the evidence for grace became a particular and peculiar kind of works: not the performance of works in the church, but the success of work in the world. This was how the Protestant ethic became the capitalist spirit. Because the Reformed churches had reformed away the legitimacy of hierarchy, community, tradition and custom, work in the world could be unconstrained by these obstacles. Thus, the second- and later-generation Reformed Protestants could experience worldly life and worldly work as a tabula rasa. This experience enabled these generations also to experience a release of previously constrained energies and to focus intently on new undertakings.

Indeed, this version of Protestantism in its worldly work was so focused that it became methodical and systematic in previously unseen ways. This experience in part explains the great energy and efficacy of some second- and later-generation Reformed Protestants. Again, when the number of such persons was large, it also in part explains the great energy and efficacy of established Protestant nations, not just for the second generation, but for several generations thereafter (for example, the Netherlands and Sweden until the 18th century; England, Scotland and America until the late 19th century).

Stage 3: Salvation by works. After several generations of this kind of Reformed Protestantism, a certain Protestant culture even with traditions and customs, developed. The number of Protestants who had experienced the culture but not the grace greatly increased. Even in the Reformed churches (Calvinist, Presbyterian, Congregational) the idea of the necessity of grace began to fade. Work in the world was no longer seen as a sign of grace but as a good in itself. Works as a good became a new version of good works.

(I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. It primarily focuses on foreign policy, but I've found it very useful in understanding American culture.)

Thus, having swept aside most of the institutions-- tradition, custom, guilds, etc.-- that had historically mediated between individuals and the "Economy", many Protestants came to believe that work is an end instead of a means, and that success was evidence of God's favor. All of this was wide-spread at America's founding, and is baked into our national DNA. It's no surprise that we've ended up with social Darwinism and capitalism "red in tooth and claw".

It's tempting to argue that if the Anti-Trust Division just started doing its job, and if our entitlement programs were a bit more generous and efficient, etc., that we'd be just fine. But that doesn't sound like a recipe for human flourishing to me. Even in the early 1800s, de Tocqueville predicted how the radical individualism of the Protestants would eventually destroy all the intermediate institutions described above, leading (ironically) to a certain kind of collectivism-- everyone isolated from his fellow man, and utterly dependent on the State.

The Catholic answer has long been Distributism, which works wonderfully on small scales, but, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tried on a national level. I'm currently exploring ways to make this work in my community, but I don't have much hope for the national economy.

Americans should be able to invest and build up their money but the super rich using money to exponentially increase their wealth does seem right to me.

Capital-ism, after all, favors those with capital. No amount of tinkering with the status quo is going to produce social justice. We need an entirely new system.

 

[chicago51]

A better understanding of how we got here might be helpful in this discussion. The Protestant Deformation by James Kurth (himself a Presbyterian elder) describes how our national ideology is a debased and secularized version of Protestantism. Here's an excerpt on the bit about how it affected our economic system specifically:



(I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. It primarily focuses on foreign policy, but I've found it very useful in understanding American culture.)

Thus, having swept aside most of the institutions-- tradition, custom, guilds, etc.-- that had historically mediated between individuals and the "Economy", many Protestants came to believe work an end instead of a means, and that success was evidence of God's favor. All of this was wide-spread at America's founding, and is baked into our national DNA. It's no surprise that we've ended up with social Darwinism and capitalism "red in tooth and claw".

It's tempting to argue that if the Anti-Trust Division started doing its job, and if our entitlement programs were more generous and efficient, etc., that we'd be just fine. But that doesn't sound like a recipe for human flourishing to me. Even in the early 1800s, de Tocqueville predicted how the radical individualism of the Protestants would eventually destroy all the intermediate institutions described above, leading (ironically) to a certain kind of collectivism-- everyone isolated from his fellow man, and utterly dependent on the State.

The Catholic answer has long been Distributism, which works wonderfully on small scales, but, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tried on a national level. I'm currently exploring ways to make this work in my community, but I don't have much hope for the national economy.



Capitalism, after all, favors those with capital. No amount of tinkering with the status quo is going to produce social justice. We need an entirely new system.

Some great stuff on the insight of the social roots of economic issues.

I consider myself fairly well read obviously concerning different economic theories. However I often fail to consider some of the social and culture issues that drive economic beliefs. Again good stuff here.

Free enterprise still blows everything else out of the water but you can have free enterprise with more equal opportunity and a higher bottom floor so to speak.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Dude, that may be the most brilliant transfer of intelligence from one source to another via a post on the interwebs. I am going to spend a few hours digesting this before I even and anything.

You are the first person I can ever remember that left me speechless!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Capital-ism, after all, favors those with capital. No amount of tinkering with the status quo is going to produce social justice. We need an entirely new system.

What about a guaranteed national income?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What about a guaranteed national income?

Insofar as politics is the "art of the possible", I'm for it. Assuming it would replace all other entitlement programs, a Basic Income would be a significant improvement over the inefficient and often inadequate patchwork we currently have.

But that wouldn't do anything to address the fact that capitalism has eroded and may (eventually) completely destroy all of our intermediate institutions, leading the widespread anomie. It would probably exacerbate it, in fact.

Then again, we can't let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good. I think the best we can do at the national level is a Basic Income, universal catastrophic healthcare coverage, and a devolution of as much power as possible back to states and municipalities. Distributism, at least, can still work on the local level.

 

[tussin]

Stop letting executives be paired with stock options.

SBC is the most effective way to align executive interests with those of the shareholders. In fact, in my line of work, seeing what percentage of compensation is in SBC is the first thing we do when we evaluate a target's management team.

 

[cody1smith]

Insofar as politics is the "art of the possible", I'm for it. Assuming it would replace all other entitlement programs, a Basic Income would be a significant improvement over the inefficient and often inadequate patchwork we currently have.

But that wouldn't do anything to address the fact that capitalism has eroded and may (eventually) completely destroy all of our intermediate institutions, leading the widespread anomie. It would probably exacerbate it, in fact.

Then again, we can't let the Perfect become the enemy of the Good. I think the best we can do at the national level is a Basic Income, universal catastrophic healthcare coverage, and a devolution of as much power as possible back to states and municipalities. Distributism, at least, can still work on the local level.

I have read this seven or eight times. Still cant wrap m head around it.

 

[magogian]

What about a guaranteed national income?

Completely impractical. The only way it would be politically palatable for the left is if it would be at such a high figure that it was economically impractical and impossible for the right to accept.

Moreover, what incentive would remain for lower income people to work? The amount would have to be high enough that someone could pay for basic housing, food, and medical care. Yet, if that was offered, I bet you would get huge numbers signing up and never working a day in their life. That would wreck our economy.

 

[cody1smith]

I say we come up with a law to make it mandatory that a business pay an employee that is worth 2 dollars a hour, 7 dollars a hour. That way the other employee that is worth 20 can only make 15. That way they both can have a smart phone.

 

[Junkhead]

I refuse to post in a political thread.

 

[chicago51]

I say we come up with a law to make it mandatory that a business pay an employee that is worth 2 dollars a hour, 7 dollars a hour. That way the other employee that is worth 20 can only make 15. That way they both can have a smart phone.

This is baseless and not fact based if you ask me.

The minimum wage has been around since the 30s wages at all levels rose with productivity. Now median income has flat lined while corporate profits have shot up through the stratosphere. CEOs ain't going broke because of having paying to pay the minimum wage.

SBC is the most effective way to align executive interests with those of the shareholders. In fact, in my line of work, seeing what percentage of compensation is in SBC is the first thing we do when we evaluate a target's management team.

What is best for the shareholders ain't best for America or even the company as a whole. It has made some rich executives lazy almost welfare queen types. You major corporations these days going into debt not to expand their business or add to their porduct lines but actually buy up their own stock to increase the stock value thus increasing their pay.

Debt to Buy Back Stock?: Greenberg

This tax break has turned some of the elites into corporate welfare queans.

 

[chicago51]

Moreover, what incentive would remain for lower income people to work? The amount would have to be high enough that someone could pay for basic housing, food, and medical care. Yet, if that was offered, I bet you would get huge numbers signing up and never working a day in their life. That would wreck our economy.

Easy you have to be working, looking for work, or have a document disability to qualify.

Another incentive for people to work? Industry can raise wages to levels higher than the hypothetical minimum income therefore encouraging people to work. OMG raise wages in terms of real income! Yes I know that is some radical stuff that we haven't seen much of since the mid 70s. If private industry pays people enough money they will gladly work than take the minimum income.

 

[DSully1995]

What about a guaranteed national income?

You mean a 100% effective tax rate on poor and unskilled?



Also, chicago, Family incomes are not indivudual, subject to social change, personal income has risen.

Also, chicago, anyone with nearly any amount of money available can start investing, if they want to. Thus becomming one of the "privileged class"

Also, find a system better at creating wealth and perfectly fair.

 

[chicago51]

You mean a 100% effective tax rate on poor and unskilled?



Also, chicago, Family incomes are not indivudual, subject to social change, personal income has risen.

Also, chicago, anyone with nearly any amount of money available can start investing, if they want to. Thus becomming one of the "privileged class"

Also, find a system better at creating wealth and perfectly fair.

Actually median individual income is doing worse off than family income because you have more 2 income households than one.

Income per capita is not a good gauge on the masses as median income. Because we have become more wealthier the last 30 years but it hasn't been spread out. When take average as in the mean income you got those making billions and multibillions that are skewing the data.

 

[Irish8248]

This thread makes me want to throw up ... Sorry for the drive by lol ... Carry on

 

[tussin]

What is best for the shareholders ain't best for America or even the company as a whole. It has made some rich executives lazy almost welfare queen types. You major corporations these days going into debt not to expand their business or add to their porduct lines but actually buy up their own stock to increase the stock value thus increasing their pay.

Debt to Buy Back Stock?: Greenberg

This tax break has turned some of the elites into corporate welfare queans.

A lot of this is just plain wrong. What is best for the shareholders of a publicly traded company is ALWAYS what is best for the company. Companies exist to enhance shareholder value. That is their ONLY objective.

As I mentioned earlier, stock-based compensation is invaluable for aligning executive incentives with those of the shareholders. This cannot be argued. If you want to see lazy executives, look at those without equity compensation. What incentive do they have to lead a company with any thought or purpose? They are getting the same check (i.e. cash) no matter what.

Also, your point on stock buybacks restricting growth is also incorrect. Most buyback initiatives are a reaction to slow growth, not the other way around. Buybacks occur to enhance shareholder wealth when organic growth stalls.

Finally, given current interest rates, debt-financed buybacks often make the most fiscal sense to large companies (many of which clearly have the cash to finance a buyback without debt). Many companies actually save cash over the long-term (as opposed to rewarding shareholders with dividends). Finally, debt buybacks give companies the opportunity to lower their cost of capital and increase operating leverage.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I say we come up with a law to make it mandatory that a business pay an employee that is worth 2 dollars a hour, 7 dollars a hour. That way the other employee that is worth 20 can only make 15. That way they both can have a smart phone.

What do you do when automation eliminates the skills needed for 75% of the workforce and only a minority of jobs are worth more than that ~$7/hr wage?

 

[chicago51]

What is best for the shareholders of a publicly traded company is ALWAYS what is best for the company. Companies exist to enhance shareholder value. That is their ONLY objective.

What about society?

Okay let me first say that what I am about to say aint personal as you where doing a job, making income for yourself and your family. So don't mind me saying God Bless you.

Now let me say this, bingo! This is statement is what is wrong with America. See I think companies should have many objectives and responsibilities. I think companies have responsibility to pay their workers decent wages, and to treat their workers humanely (which many transnational don't as evidence by factory conditions overseas). I think companies have a responsibility to somehow better their local communities. Many business do these things but a lot don't.

Corporations to exist still have to have charters with state governments. However state governments used to demand some sort of public good in their mission statements and would revoke corporations charters if they thought say a railroad company was behaving detrimentally to the state and the community. We don't do this any more in fact you got guys like Rick Perry kissing as much corporate rear ends as possible trying get as many jobs as possible to his state, which I don't completely blame him for.

Finally let me say that I think this may prove Whisky's assertion right and me wrong. We are not that we are all that far off in our end objectives and visions. Whisky though has long noted the unequal and what many would consider unjust distribution of wealth root causes are social and culture not economic. My mind works in a very analytical fashion so I tend to think that there is always a concrete plan or answer to a given problem. So I tend to think if we replaced a bad tax code loaded with corporate welfare/special interest loopholes, and bad economic policies with better policies that more people would have a greater share in the wealth of capitalism creates; and maybe we would.

I'll say though it looks like I am wrong. Because I think Tussin is right the only objective companies see themselves having is enhancing share holder value. There is no corporate objectives toward society. Even though government research has help many corporations, even though corporations use workers educated by their state's public school system, even though corporations use infrastructure paid for by we the people the only objective is to enhance shareholder value.

I'll ask the question socially/culturally has America lost its soul?

The one argument I get is private charity. Personally I don't buy the private charity argument some make. There is a small few that would seriously rather don't to private charity and believe that is better than government programs. I think must just don't see any responsibility to community or society. I got say it sure looks a lot of times like there is no obligation to community or society.

So the net of this is that Whisky is right the problems are social and cultural not simply a matter of economic policy.

 

[Irish#1]

What about society?

Okay let me first say that what I am about to say aint personal as you where doing a job, making income for yourself and your family. So don't mind me saying God Bless you.

Now let me say this, bingo! This is statement is what is wrong with America. See I think companies should have many objectives and responsibilities. I think companies have responsibility to pay their workers decent wages, and to treat their workers humanely (which many transnational don't as evidence by factory conditions overseas). I think companies have a responsibility to somehow better their local communities. Many business do these things but a lot don't.

Corporations to exist still have to have charters with state governments. However state governments used to demand some sort of public good in their mission statements and would revoke corporations charters if they thought say a railroad company was behaving detrimentally to the state and the community. We don't do this any more in fact you got guys like Rick Perry kissing as much corporate rear ends as possible trying get as many jobs as possible to his state, which I don't completely blame him for.

Finally let me say that I think this may prove Whisky's assertion right and me wrong. We are not that we are all that far off in our end objectives and visions. Whisky though has long noted the unequal and what many would consider unjust distribution of wealth root causes are social and culture not economic. My mind works in a very analytical fashion so I tend to think that there is always a concrete plan or answer to a given problem. So I tend to think if we replaced a bad tax code loaded with corporate welfare/special interest loopholes, and bad economic policies with better policies that more people would have a greater share in the wealth of capitalism creates; and maybe we would.

I'll say though it looks like I am wrong. Because I think Tussin is right the only objective companies see themselves having is enhancing share holder value. There is no corporate objectives toward society. Even though government research has help many corporations, even though corporations use workers educated by their state's public school system, even though corporations use infrastructure paid for by we the people the only objective is to enhance shareholder value.

I'll ask the question socially/culturally has America lost its soul?

The one argument I get is private charity. Personally I don't buy the private charity argument some make. There is a small few that would seriously rather don't to private charity and believe that is better than government programs. I think must just don't see any responsibility to community or society. I got say it sure looks a lot of times like there is no obligation to community or society.

So the net of this is that Whisky is right the problems are social and cultural not simply a matter of economic policy.

Why are 99% of companies started? To make a profit, whether it be a small business for a single owner or a large corporation. They aren't started in order to create well paying jobs for a group of people.

You can trace a lot of the economic woes back to the UAW in the 70's & early 80's. They struck all over for better wages because they thought it was unfair for stockholders to get big dividends and they only receive a salary. Union salaries raced through the roof. UAW workers became some of the best paid workers in the country. In order to pay these salaries the price of cars went way up. Now the average Joe has to go into major debt to buy a car he really can't afford, but needs to get to his job, the grocery, etc..

I do agree that CEO's salaries are way out of hand and need to be reeled in.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I refuse to post in a political thread.

Seems ironic then that I am able to quote you in one.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I have read this seven or eight times. Still cant wrap m head around it.

I agree, it is almost unique (and brilliant) thought.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Why are 99% of companies started? To make a profit, whether it be a small business for a single owner or a large corporation. They aren't started in order to create well paying jobs for a group of people.

You can trace a lot of the economic woes back to the UAW in the 70's & early 80's. They struck all over for better wages because they thought it was unfair for stockholders to get big dividends and they only receive a salary. Union salaries raced through the roof. UAW workers became some of the best paid workers in the country. In order to pay these salaries the price of cars went way up. Now the average Joe has to go into major debt to buy a car he really can't afford, but needs to get to his job, the grocery, etc..

I do agree that CEO's salaries are way out of hand and need to be reeled in.

I hear you, but have you ever checked out the UPS model? That company was built by guys that had ownership incentive, from bottom to top. Even this country has never before (or ruefully since) seen an example where so many middle management retired millionaires, (as opposed to a place like GM where they pawned off a whole bunch of management on EDS, just to get out of paying benefits and retirement in the 80's and 90's.)

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This thread makes me want to throw up ... Sorry for the drive by lol ... Carry on

At least it it getting some kind of strong response from everyone.

 

[goldandblue]

You can trace a lot of the economic woes back to the UAW in the 70's & early 80's. They struck all over for better wages because they thought it was unfair for stockholders to get big dividends and they only receive a salary. Union salaries raced through the roof. UAW workers became some of the best paid workers in the country. In order to pay these salaries the price of cars went way up. Now the average Joe has to go into major debt to buy a car he really can't afford, but needs to get to his job, the grocery, etc..

I do agree that CEO's salaries are way out of hand and need to be reeled in.

Speaking of Union jobs... I used to work out of Local 572 in Nashville TN. They were the laziest bunch of people I have ever met... There was/is absolutely no incentive for them to produce. They can't hardly be fired, if they do somehow manage to be let go which is almost always a layoff, they go sign a book at the hall and poof within a couple weeks have another job making the same great money and still not doing shit... I do believe that the union was created for good reason. At the time the American mindset toward work was great. People had a desire to work and had a moral standard. Today not so much for the vast majority.

I spent about a year and a half in the union because I wanted to follow my grandfathers footsteps. Back in the 80's when he first started in the union, they were building a nuclear power plant in the Middle Tennessee area. He will tell you to this day the reason that the plant never got built was because the union ran that company bankrupt. He said there were weeks at a time when they would pump water from one mud hole to another and then pump it straight back into the original hole the next day. What a joke...

 

[Irish#1]

I hear you, but have you ever checked out the UPS model? That company was built by guys that had ownership incentive, from bottom to top. Even this country has never before (or ruefully since) seen an example where so many middle management retired millionaires, (as opposed to a place like GM where they pawned off a whole bunch of management on EDS, just to get out of paying benefits and retirement in the 80's and 90's.)

There's always an exception to the rule. Would be nice to see more of these.

Speaking of Union jobs... I used to work out of Local 572 in Nashville TN. They were the laziest bunch of people I have ever met... There was/is absolutely no incentive for them to produce. They can't hardly be fired, if they do somehow manage to be let go which is almost always a layoff, they go sign a book at the hall and poof within a couple weeks have another job making the same great money and still not doing shit... I do believe that the union was created for good reason. At the time the American mindset toward work was great. People had a desire to work and had a moral standard. Today not so much for the vast majority.

I spent about a year and a half in the union because I wanted to follow my grandfathers footsteps. Back in the 80's when he first started in the union, they were building a nuclear power plant in the Middle Tennessee area. He will tell you to this day the reason that the plant never got built was because the union ran that company bankrupt. He said there were weeks at a time when they would pump water from one mud hole to another and then pump it straight back into the original hole the next day. What a joke...

Back around 1975, I lived next door to a guy that was a UAW member working at Ford. He was laid off and bragging that while he was laid off, he was getting 90% of his paycheck through his union contract. He thought it was great to get paid that much for staying home, not realizing what the real impact was.

Right after HS, I spent about two months working in a factory. The mindset of those people was to get as much as they could for doing as little as possible. It was almost like a game they were playing. I knew pretty quickly I didn't want to become one of them. That's when I was fortunate enough to get into IT.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

A better understanding of how we got here might be helpful in this discussion. The Protestant Deformation by James Kurth (himself a Presbyterian elder) describes how our national ideology is a debased and secularized version of Protestantism. Here's an excerpt on the bit about how it affected our economic system specifically:



(I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. It primarily focuses on foreign policy, but I've found it very useful in understanding American culture.)

Thus, having swept aside most of the institutions-- tradition, custom, guilds, etc.-- that had historically mediated between individuals and the "Economy", many Protestants came to believe that work is an end instead of a means, and that success was evidence of God's favor. All of this was wide-spread at America's founding, and is baked into our national DNA. It's no surprise that we've ended up with social Darwinism and capitalism "red in tooth and claw".

It's tempting to argue that if the Anti-Trust Division just started doing its job, and if our entitlement programs were a bit more generous and efficient, etc., that we'd be just fine. But that doesn't sound like a recipe for human flourishing to me. Even in the early 1800s, de Tocqueville predicted how the radical individualism of the Protestants would eventually destroy all the intermediate institutions described above, leading (ironically) to a certain kind of collectivism-- everyone isolated from his fellow man, and utterly dependent on the State.

The Catholic answer has long been Distributism, which works wonderfully on small scales, but, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tried on a national level. I'm currently exploring ways to make this work in my community, but I don't have much hope for the national economy.



Capital-ism, after all, favors those with capital. No amount of tinkering with the status quo is going to produce social justice. We need an entirely new system.

An absolutely fantastic post. It's been some time since I've read something that caused a mental breakthrough in regards to understanding the world around me more holistically.

As an aside, you also get reps for Distributism because it's something I've long been a fan of. First read about it from Chesterton, then kept reading. I much prefer local economics increasing stability of cities and towns and I'd even prefer an incentivized program for small, local businesses if it wouldn't implode in some fashion.

Thanks for the insightful post.